"A documentary about coping with pedophilia called Daniel's world by Veronika Lišková will, after a successful premiere at Ji.Hlava IDFF, where it got the Audience Award, appear in the competition section Panorama at the prestigious Berlinale festival that begins this week. It is a great success, given that the last time a Czech film appeared in a competition at Berlinale was in 2007 (feature film I Served the King of England by Jiří Menzel). The first out of the four planned screenings takes place on February 9, 2015. On February 19, the film supported by Institute of Documentary Film will enter the Czech cinemas oficially.
On this occasion we bring an exclusive interview with the director, Veronika Lišková"
There is no slippery slope.
Children cannot consent. Beasts cannot consent. Grown men and women can consent. This will never change no matter how mad it makes you.
This is about recognizing that people born with conditions should not be ostracized and labelled as mentally ill or a danger to others because of a vocal minority driven by fear and in need of a scapegoat.
>There is no slippery slope.
>Children cannot consent.
Remember when this was used as an argument for why trannies would never start hormones and shit before becoming legal?
Only now it turns out they are anyway.
No slippery slope! :^)
Hormone treatment for prepubescents
>Beasts cannot consent.
And here's more:
It really is their latest cause.
I especially like that "born this way", the defense that worked for gay people (even though half the time they'll admit it's a choice) and trannies.
They just can't help it. They're biologically designed to diddle kids. :^(
So is this the kinda thing where they're trying to make pedophilia seem okay or not as bad as it is?
Because I've got a friend who was diddled by her dad and she's all kinds of fucked up now. Kids don't understand what's going on, and most of the time they know they don't like it.
The ride never ends
> being born gay, trans, or pedo is not a choice and you should not have to suffer for it
> being born white or male is, and you should be forced to spend the rest of your life apologizing for your unfair privilege
consent is a social construct
i enjoy seeing the west deteriorate like this
it's liek watching a car crash with your enemy in the vehicle.
ITT: People supporting punishment of thoughtcrimes because of feels.
Pedophilia is a sexual attraction like any other.
>No slippery slope! :^)
The age of consent used to be 7 in America. We've only gone up the slope. In fact, feminists are the reason it changed from 7.
But, you know, keep being ignorant on the subject if you want to.
Fuck pedos make my dick so fucking hard. You guys don't even know how bad I want to stick to Chemfag (or is it AA that we have the pic of floating around here?).
I am sexually attracted to pedos. Does that make me a Pedophilephile? What would be the philia term?
A few things.
I've known a ton of chicks that got molested and they were absolutely fucking wacko. You don't really meet a lot of dudes who've been molested because they usually kill themselves pretty soon after or later in life when they realize what happened. This one kid on my street got molested and tried to stab a bunch of kids on the school bus and would always leave dead birds and shit on everybodies porch. Nothing will ever convince me that sex with minors is okay.
I do think that treatment of pedophiles is a good thing, especially if they know that their urges are wrong and that they need help. It lets everybody know the deal and to keep their kids away from the person, it's sort of like letting them "out themselves." I'd never trust a person with those urges, but I'd rather know than be unsure. Same with trannies and gays and the like - if you know its wrong and you seek psychological treatment, then you're a lot better than someone who thinks taking dick in an alleyway is the right thing to do.
fucked my post up the first time
>people born with conditions should not be labelled as mentally ill
This doesn't make sense to me.
Unless you think there's nothing abnormal or at odds with our society in somebody sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids.
>It lets everybody know the deal and to keep their kids away from the person, it's sort of like letting them "out themselves."
This is not treatment and this is why pedophiles don't seek treatment.
No one wants to be turned into a social outcast.
So you're willing to risk some pedophiles instead hiding their urges for as long as possible and eventually failing over it.
You're willing to let more children get molested or even raped for your retarded thought crime fantasies.
>I'd never trust a person with those urges
>social outcasts do exist and will never be fully terminated, and if we can trick them into outing themselves, I'm all for that.
If you want pedophiles to accept treatment, offer full and guaranteed anonymity.
I know that social acceptance won't happen.
But you don't need it if you offer anonymity. If treatment is anonymous, people can take it without having to fear being a social outcast afterwards.
Children cannot consent. Extensive evidence shows the damage it does to children. Anyone who argues otherwise are trolls trying to make a point or a pedophile that is rationalizing why it's ok for him/her to have sex with a child.
I am fine with pedophiles not being harassed and looked on as scum or not being able to see out help due to stigma. I do however have issue with pedophiles that want to legitimize child sexual assault and/or rape. It's dangerous for pedophiles to do this because it is a step closer to actually molesting a child. Now all pedophiles want to harm children but going down the path of rationalizing rape can lead to rape
>Fuck pedos make my dick so fucking hard.
What's it like not being white?
That is a good point. I still think that a self-proclaimed pedophile should never be able to teach or drive a school bus or hold power positions like cops, in the same way that you don't prescribe addictive medication to someone with a history of addiction. They will feel outcasted no matter what ends up happening, because they require different treatment in society. I don't know how we would appease them.
Age of consent used to be 7 in America, and there were zero negative effects on children. Damage only happens because of pedophile hysteria. It causes parents and other "professionals" to shame children so badly that they are mentally damaged as a result.
>Let's fix this problem by casting them further into the shadows
I bet you support the war on drugs too, since you're such a fan of prohibition and lazy legislation.
That road leads to retarded legislation like pedophiles not being allowed to live within x yards of children gathering, which then leaves a grand total of 0 places to live, and drives them underground.
Or, in your proposal, may cause unemployment, with all its side effects.
If treatment is effective and behaviour is monitored - and teachers behaviour is monitored like hell - then I don't see a reason not to allow them.
Every time you couple treatment with negative effects, it makes pedophiles less likely to accept treatment.
>tfw my internet slows to a crawl after posting that
Is it possible all the real pedos are extremely well hidden and hard to find now, and you're now going after people with perfectly normal attractions to young adults and calling them pedos in order to look like you're still dong your jobs?
>gays and the like
Science demonstrates otherwise.
Aside from that, someone in my family was molested and never killed themselves. Instead, that one was a very hard worker and responsible in life. Ancedotes aren't proof.
Less than 10% of children involved in sex with adults report the experience being "traumatic" or "forceful". Stop lying, feminist shill.
Warning signs: http://www.parentsprotect.co.uk/warning_signs.htm
I'm not a feminist.
This also gives a hint towards the problem science has with pedophiles: Nearly everything we know about pedophilia, we know from convicted felons, i.e. pedophiles who a) didn't resist their urges, and b) were stupid enough to get caught.
Shut up Australia I'm trying to have a civil conversation.
That all hinges on whether or not the treatment is truly effective. I don't know enough about sexual psychology to know what specifically happens and how effective it can be. If they are monitored, as you suggested, isn't that a negative effect that would make pedophiles less likely to seek treatment? Everybody would eventually know about your past if you're the guy who needs supervision around children.
It was 12 you shit.
>zero negative effects on children
Nigger you can't claim this shit without prove.
>only damage is pedophile hysteria
Besides internal bleeding and scaring.
And being completly taken advantage by a older person.
I'm not trying to prove anything here, this is more of a playground for moral questions, and for general discussion. I thought that was clear, and that it was clear that I was just describing my experiences. I have people in my family that have been molested too and have turned out okay, but they are not the majority, as I have observed it.
All I said about trannies and gays is that I don't mind them as much if they seek treatment, want do you mean "science demonstrates otherwise?"
>I don't mind them as much if they seek treatment
There is nothing to seek treatment for. That is why I called you out on not accepting scientific knowledge on the subject.
I agree, though, that molestation can cause problems in the victims life.
> "science demonstrates otherwise?"
I mean there is nothing wrong with them to require treatment.
>If they are monitored, as you suggested, isn't that a negative effect that would make pedophiles less likely to seek treatment?
Let's be real, most people working with children already are monitored like fuck. Parents are paranoid, organizations are scared of lawsuits. If you're working with children, you better never step out of line for even a minute, or you risk getting the hammer of everything they can muster up against you, just to be sure.
Extra monitoring would hence have to happen in coordination with the treatment, i.e. in evaluations. We can assume that someone actively seeking treatment will also work with the counselor to that end.
How effective the treatment is is also an interesting question, because we don't know the baseline. No one has any idea how many pedophiles there are "in hiding" right now, too paranoid to ever tell anyone. Estimates vary enough to be completely useless - we're talking variances from less than one percent to more than 20 percent.
Ideally, pedophiles would choose not to work with children to begin with, if they believe themselves to be at risk of offending, of course. That should also be something the counselor works towards. But how much can you interfere with someones freedom here, without the person having committed any crime? When is it justified to cut someones rights based on "they may turn out as criminals", and can we trust psychiatry and psychology with drawing the line appropriately?
It's difficult, and the longer the witch hunt lasts, the harder it gets. The next generation of pedophiles knows how to hide on the internet, they won't be caught as easily.
Do you guys think a person that admits having sexual fantasies involving children should be jailed?
It's like having rape fetishes. I hape rape fantasies sometimes. I would NEVER attempt to rape anyone ever.
I think we're too close minded in that matter
1. These suffer from severe bias because over 90% of adult-child sex is never reported. It stands to reason the forceful events would be reported more often than events where the child agrees to the act, doesn't it?
2. Considering it has been proven throughout history the act itself is harmless, why are you discounting the effect of pedophile hysteria and conditioning on responses of "victims"?
3. Children are outright conditioned and led to act this way by police and parents. Police literally have guides on how to "break" children who will not turn on their "attacker" in order to make them testify.
>In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.
How does it feel to be so wrong?
I mean in regard to what is "healthy" for a society, in that homosexuality and transgenderism is not healthy for the society. Man has urges to kill, but if we all went around killing one another recklessly, society would suffer. Although killing-urges are natural and nothing new to psychology, we would still treat somebody who has these urges in an uncontrollable way or somebody that actually acts out these urges. This is hardly a position to argue from, though, because then we have to discuss what is and is not healthy for society, and that almost never leads anywhere good, since it is such a wide open topic that encompasses almost every moral question.
I don't think that it's healthy for Western society, and I think that it should be treated.
>he wants to stick his dick in the anus of a 7 years old boy
>he tries very hard to justify this craving
>he goes as far as to pretend kids are forced to hate being anally ravaged at a young age
>he shills on pol
>he probably sets up plans back on the cripple's website attempting to spread pedophilia awareness and make it acceptable
give me one reason why i shouldn't have the right to shoot someone who tries to abuse my kids
Criminology you probably mean. Or abnormal psych. There's a lot of overlap between psychopaths and pedophilia, because to the average (real)pedo it's more about sadism and corrupting the innocent than anything really sexual.
But they can't even find psychopaths in today's world until they're caught red handed, and even then they are easily manipulated by them. So here they are online, trying to get someone to say something in a thread, because the real monsters out there are too hard to find.
I'd like to take a moment to advocate mandatory brain scans at set times in everyone's lives to detect atrophied neocortexes that are the hallmark of psychopathy. Find them when they are young and get them in treatment before they find their secret outlet for it.
>These suffer from severe bias because over 90% of adult-child sex is never reported. It stands to reason the forceful events would be reported more often than events where the child agrees to the act, doesn't it?
It stands to reason that not all rape of a child will become known.
> Considering it has been proven throughout history the act itself is harmless
It hasn't. We know better now based on evidence to the contrary.
>why are you discounting the effect of pedophile hysteria and conditioning on responses of "victims"?
I have pointed out before that the warning signs happen before the crime is known so it is before any conditioning could occur.
>Children are outright conditioned and led to act this way by police and parents.
Same as above. Children victims of molestation tend to afraid so a little bit of prying is necessary in order to protect the child from further occurrences.
>In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.
How does it feel to be so wrong?
Wrong about what, exactly? That people used to live differently back them? The question was whether or not it is harmless. Not whether or not it was common years ago.
>His country flag looks like the LGBT rainbow flag.
So progressive :^)
>I mean in regard to what is "healthy" for a society, in that homosexuality and transgenderism is not healthy for the society
It still stands that your views do not align themselves with scientific knowledge on the subject.
Sexual urges which are normal and not unhealthy to society or those that take part is not equal to murder which is in fact harmful to society and the victims that are murdered.
> and I think that it should be treated
Science doesn't deal with morality. It deals with what is falsifiable and what is demonstrated. No psychologist worth his salt would treat homosexuality.
Are you ready to be proven wrong? Ready? You sure? Okay!
>This model is judged by Gorer as socially viable, i.e. not likely to give rise to psychological discomfort or neuroses for all or most males. He adds that in many societies, pederasty has been the main subject of the arts and the main source of tender and elevated emotions.
I can't wait for you to move the goalposts!
>I have pointed out before that the warning signs happen before the crime is known so it is before any conditioning could occur.
So you don't know what conditioning is? Children are taught stranger danger and taught to be ashamed of their bodies from a very young age. This stems from pedophile hysteria, and is conditioning.
>Wrong about what, exactly?
Shifting goalposts so soon? Can't admit you were outright wrong about the age of consent historically? Pretty funny anon.
>Are you ready to be proven wrong? Ready? You sure? Okay!
I provided links already.
>I can't wait for you to move the goalposts!
You haven't presented an argument or scientific knowledge.
>So you don't know what conditioning is?
You don't seem to understand how conditioning works.
Stranger danger isn't the same as a child consenting to a sexual experience by an adult. We know the signs way before they are told that having sex with someone else is bad.
>Shifting goalposts so soon?
That is what you're doing. I noticed you didn't actually say anything.
>dodges the question with a passive aggressive remark and a smiley
>he tries to hide behind "lgbt"
There's only one cure for people who fuck children and that is hours of excruciating torture followed by death.
I couldn't care less about the cause of their sickness, even if was legitimately genetic.
They're vermin who should be exterminated.
Anon stop, you can't outmatch his shitposting.
He's an Aussie, it's in his blood.
>It has be demonstrated that it isn't.
How do you demonstrate such a thing without anecdotes?
>I provided links already.
So you're saying my cited source is inadmissible because of your feels?
>You haven't presented an argument or scientific knowledge.
I'm about to :)
>That is what you're doing. I noticed you didn't actually say anything.
I proved you wrong twice with cited sources, and you shifted the goalposts both times.
It looks like selectable flags are back and you're on the rainbow option :^)
>How do you demonstrate such a thing without anecdotes?
How do you demonstrate that it is harmful? Regardless, there are studies on this. Many decades ago the only gays that were studied were patients of psychiatrists and not those outside treatment.
So, why are people still replying to the tripfag?
Do you like shitposting or what?
homophobia literally translates to "same fright"
>he still can't answer the question
thank you for passively agreeing with the fact that i can shoot anyone trying to abuse my kids
Cited scientific sources:
>Higgins, D. J., & McCabe, M. P. (2003). "Maltreatment and Family Dysfunction in Childhood and the Subsequent Adjustment of Children and Adults," Journal of Family Violence, 18(2)
"Parental sexual punitiveness, traditionality, family adaptability and family cohesion significantly predicted scores on 4 maltreatment scales and children's externalizing behavior problems."
>Plummer, Ken (1981). "The Paedophile's Progress: A View from Below," in Brian Taylor (ed.), Perspectives on Paedophilia, p. 227. London: Batsford.
"Studies point to the experience being without trauma and frequently mutually pleasurable ... unless, and this is an important proviso, it is 'discovered' by the family or the community. When this happens, it appears that the child can become shocked by the engulfing anger and outrage of the adult."
>Henry, J. (1997). "System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims following disclosure," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 499-512.
"Results indicated that higher trauma scores, as measured by the Trauma Symptom Checklist, were related to an increased number of interviews, even when other aspects of the abuse such as seriousness were controlled for."
>Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1995). "The effects of disclosure and intervention on sexually abused children," Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(3), 371-384.
"Having contact with a greater number of professionals following disclosure was related to greater negative impact of the abuse."
>Bauserman, Robert, and Davis, Clive (1996). "Perceptions of Early Sexual Experiences and Adult Sexual Adjustment," International Journal of Sexual Health, 8(3), 37-59.
"Results supported the hypotheses that positively evaluated early sexual experiences would be associated with greater erotophilia, more acceptance of various sexual behaviors for self and others, and greater sexual satisfaction."
>So you're saying my cited source is inadmissible because of your feels?
No, I am saying that cited sources from well established organizations with peer reviewed studies and rape reports and real world experiences tells us the effects rape has on children.
>I proved you wrong twice with cited sources, and you shifted the goalposts both times.
Nope. Nice goalposts bro
>Lives in third world country
>Thinks his opinion is at all relevant
Are you going to ignore my cited sources from well established organizations with peer reviewed studies here: >>41471869
>Literally hasn't cited a source at all except his feels
>Resorts to ad hominem
You're winning, anon :^)
>he thinks it doesn't apply entirely to the USA
>uses appeal to authority to try and get people to forcefully accept that they should let their kids be fucked by pedophiles
I do think if gays are allowed to marry and have a disgusting annual pervert parade in every major city, pedophiles should be able to tell their fucking therapists they are sick and need help without fear of stigmatization or worse yet, LEA.
Its either a choice or its not liberals. Fuck your inconsistent shit.
Because it proves that pedophile hysteria is the cause of "damage" claimed to be the result of adult-child sex, not the act itself causing the damage.
This is why when the age of consent was 7 in America, there were no problems and this is why when pederasty was accepted there were no problems.
It's been done before. Successfully. Documented success.
What's this? >>41471869
>inb4 reply with ad hominem or goal shifting, or both.
times change, you have to move on, you can't stop progress
why are you against progress? leave that old, outdated idea that you can fuck 7 years old kids where you found it
>Ignoring cited sources, again.
I cited sources here: >>41471614
Is admitting to have fantasies involving chldren considered illegal in your country? (I honesty don't know about mine)
That's wrong. It's like having rape fantasies, it's natural. The thing that separates the human from the animal is not indulging in these fantasies, and people are pretty good at that.
>Because it proves that pedophile hysteria is the cause of "damage"
But as I have demonstrated, the signs of abuse appear before this conditioning is instilled. Before swarms of police are drama enter the picture.
>This is why when the age of consent was 7 in America
You make a jump in conclusions here. You go from "this was allowed years ago" to "this is why it's ok to have sex with kids". The onus is to show you to show that what you say is the reason why this is. Many things used to be accepted back then but we know differently now. That doesn't mean that because it was once commonplace that it's not harmful.
Successfully? What's the end goal?
Legalization of child porn leads to lower rates of child rape, much like the prevalence of regular pornography has led to a decrease in the rape of women.
I meant what I said, also I think it was chemfag that was the cutie. Pedophiles make my dick hard. I am attracted to pedophiles. People whom are pedophiles are my fetish, and if I am able I would rape one submissively.
Clear enough for you, cutey?
>legalization of murder leads to lower rates of murders
Conditioning is instilled from a very early age. Are you saying a child has NEVER been taught stranger danger and to hate their naked body before they were "abused"? Stop being deliberately obtuse.
You don't even know why the AoC was raised in the first place. Hint: It was not for concerns of child welfare.
>and to hate their naked body
>Are you saying a child has NEVER been taught stranger danger
literally nothing wrong with that
>Antis ignored cited sources from respected professors
>Continue to ad hominem and shift goalposts
Every single time.
It must suck having a morality based on feels rather than logic.
Yes, I understand. You miss the point. Being afraid of strangers is not the same as children kneejerking to the following police drama telling them that it was wrong.
Firstly, 90% of the time children are molested by someone they know so stranger danger goes out the window. The child doesn't fear the one that is molesting them because they know them. Child grooming is already in effect.
>Many things used to be accepted back then but we know differently now. That doesn't mean that because it was once commonplace that it's not harmful.
That is a retarded statement, many things were shit in the past, but many other things were better.
remember when pol could have a debate and discourse?
Children almost never fear molestation. Everyone loves sex, including children. We widely consider it to be healthy and fun. Why is it worse than the Holocaust when you add a child, who can be sexually aroused just like adults?
you can tell the pedophile is afraid of gun owners
he knows if he attempts anything towards a kid, his parents will be on a hunt
he wants to push the appeal to authority so that he can force he view that parents should be "open" about him inserting his penis inside the anus of a 7 years old boy
never mind the fact that none of his sources promotes the idea that sex should be completely legal between a young child and an adult
i'm gonna contact the researchers of these studies to see what they think of the pedophile's idea that sex between a 7 years old boy and a 30 years old man should be completely legal, and how attempts to stop it should be punished
>That is a retarded statement, many things were shit in the past, but many other things were better.
Right, but it doesn't showcase whether its right or wrong based on this alone.
>Children almost never fear molestation.
Because they are children and have no understanding of sex or whats happening to them.
At the end of the day, even if they didn't fear it, show negative signs as a result after having sex with someone that wasn't a stranger to them and way before a detective ever talks to them.
It's not up to you. He's not your slave.
[spoiler]Is he cute?[/spoiler]
Societal conditioning. Parents teach children their bodies are to be ashamed. The law says they should be ashamed. There is nothing in the world more illegal to possess a picture of than a child's naked body.
>Have cited at least seven sources.
>"You're using feels!"
>Hasn't cited a single source himself.
>pull a claim out of his ass
>hides behind invisible consensus through the use of "we"
>appeals to emotions through the argument that "sex feels good, therefore i should be able to stick my penis inside your 7 years old boy"
>appeals to absurdity by bringing in the holocaust